TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learly evident that the used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machine were released on payment of redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the enhanced value of the imported goods. The present appeal is partially allowed by reducing the redemption fine to 10% of the enhanced value and penalty to 5% of the enhanced value. Appellant is allowed to redeem the goods for home consumption. - Customs Appeal No.20513 of 2022 - FINAL ORDER NO.20728 /2023 - Dated:- 24-7-2023 - MR. P.A. AUGUSTIAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K. A. Jathin, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The appellant had imported used Multifun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es were subject matter in large number of cases including the case law referred by the Appellate Authority. Since the issue regarding confiscation of the goods is settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v/s M/s Atul Automation Pvt. Ltd, dated 24.01.2019, goods are not liable for confiscation. Regarding quantum of fine and penalty, learned counsel draws our attention to various decisions of this Tribunal in similar cases where it was held that in the absence of any finding regarding the market value of the goods, the goods are being released subject to payment of redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% on enhanced assessable value. It is further submitted that, in view of the findings given by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent appeal is related to goods imported on 20.08.2018. The learned counsel further submits that when this Tribunal remanded the matter for denovo adjudication directing adjudication authority to find out the market value of the goods and to quantify the redemption fine and penalty, aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed appeal before the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka and only on dismissal of the departmental appeal, Adjudication Authority considered the issue for denovo adjudication. Though this Tribunal had issued specific direction to find out the market value of the goods, the Adjudication Authority issue an order imposing redemption fine equivalent to the value of the goods on the ground that the market value of such good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of the goods on the imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had held that the goods are not liable for absolute confiscation but are to be released on payment of redemption fine. He further upheld 100% penalty equivalent to the value of the imported goods. The appellant now is in appeal only to the extent of redemption fine and penalty since he has accepted the enhanced value as per the Chartered Engineer s certificate. 6. It is seen from the records that there have been number of orders issued by this Tribunal and High Courts accepting the fact that the impugned MFDs are not liable for absolute confiscation. Hence have taken a lenient view and released these goods on payment of redemption fine of 10% penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
